Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Roberts. As we all know, this February, President Bush nominated Ambassador John Negroponte to serve as the Nation's first Director of National Intelligence. I rise today in strong support of his confirmation for this demanding position. I agree with the chairman and vice chairman; I can think of few people as well suited by experience, intelligence, and dedication to tackle this assignment. I heard the remarks of the vice chairman, and I wish to associate myself with those very fine remarks-- particularly his remarks about General Hayden who is nominated to be the Principal Deputy. We are not talking about his nomination today, but I associate myself with the high commendation that has been made of this gentleman, who also deserves prompt confirmation, so that we can get about the critically important work of providing intelligence. Ambassador Negroponte's wealth of experience and outstanding track record should be well known to all of us. A proven leader and manager in our national security establishment, he served five tours as chief of mission in U.S. Embassies. He has worked closely not only with frontline intelligence officers but himself served as Deputy National Security Adviser. He has solid experience working with the U.S. military, as well as representatives of Cabinet departments. Most telling, his recent experience as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the United Nations provide him with a unique view into the spectrum of national security challenges we now face and how best to construct an intelligence apparatus to meet those challenges. He understands that while collecting, analyzing, and disseminating good intelligence are not only requirements of a sound foreign policy and a secure homeland, they are key elements. Most important, these are processes in dire need of repair. The Ambassador is the right choice at the right time to take on these challenges. As we continue our war on terror against those who would do us harm, our intelligence community must also work to stem the proliferation and prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, maintain a watchful eye on global competitors and adversaries, be alert to emerging threats, and provide guidance to policymakers on how best to positively influence global change. Most importantly, they must be able to provide policymakers with timely, accurate, and authoritative intelligence to manage, instead of reacting to looming threats. In short, the Ambassador has his work cut out for him. He will have to invigorate human intelligence capabilities. Our spies and agents must not only collect better intelligence, they must work to penetrate the governments of rogue states, terrorist and insurgent organizations, and closed societies where some of the most devious plots to attack America and its people and interests, as well as our allies, are hatched. We know we have fallen short in our human intelligence--or HUMINT--capabilities leading up to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are going to have to correct that and we look for the DNI's leadership to do that. As DNI, the Ambassador will have to work diligently to ensure that signals intelligence and other technical collection means are continuously updated, expanded, and modified to not only provide strategic intelligence but also actionable information for our war fighters--something in which I am personally most interested. Our intelligence community is home to some of the world's finest minds which have averted disaster and provided the highest quality information to consumers from the President down to the privates on the front line. However, inferential analysis and ``group think'' are practices against which the DNI must guard. The DNI must ensure that rigorously competitive analysis models and improved analytics tradecraft be implemented. The problem of inaccurate information sharing amongst agencies has been a recurring theme during the review of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of our recent intelligence failures leading to 9/11 and U.S. assessments of Iraq WMD programs. We have seen, unfortunately, even since 9/11, far too recent incidents where agencies working on common problems did not share that information and those sources. In this day, that is totally unacceptable. The DNI will not only face the challenge of ensuring that information is passed up and down the chain of command, but that colleagues working for different agencies within the intelligence community can and do regularly share and exchange information and ideas. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, under the wise, compassionate guidance of Chairman Roberts, has espoused the idea of not merely information sharing but of information access. It is a difficult task. Sensitive information must be protected from disclosure, and too often protecting it from disclosure means not sharing it with people who are working on the same project. Nonetheless, the Ambassador has assured me that an analyst with a need to know will have access to the information, regardless of who collects it and who is working on it. In the end, no matter what means is used to collect intelligence, it is the fine, brave, and dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who will make it work on any given day on the ground. It will be not only a responsibility but a duty of the DNI to ensure that these men and women receive the proper education and training to discharge their duties. While substantive expertise and technical prowess are essential, leadership and management training, along with mentorship programs are key elements that will ensure that we attract, as well as retain, the talented, motivated, and dedicated personnel we need. The men and women of the intelligence community are our first tripwire to help stave off disaster. They can advise us on prudent courses of action to advance our national security interests. They willingly take great risks and make great sacrifices daily. Accordingly, it is the solemn obligation of the DNI to ensure their ranks continue to be filled with competent visionaries, managers, and innovators who are willing to lead and care for them. Over the years, this body has seen and even drafted recommendations to establish a DNI and/or a more accountable and powerful chief of our intelligence community. While the establishment of a DNI is historic, it was not established to the degree of budgetary and other powers that I, along with several of my colleagues, would have liked and thought would be very necessary. So the Ambassador will face challenges as he asserts his authority over the 15 intelligence agencies he will supervise. I hope he will use the implied powers of this position and the positive enforcement and support of the President to make sure the work that needs to be done is done and the DNI will have the power that, unfortunately, he was not given in the legislation but we believe he must exercise. Reflecting on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and the WMD Commission, as well as many pre-9/11 studies, and the work that has gone on in the Select Committee on Intelligence, I fully endorse and call on my colleagues to support Ambassador Negroponte as he establishes these powers to make sure our homeland is protected and our policymakers and warfighters on the ground are well informed. Having met with Ambassador Negroponte at length and being well aware of his qualifications, I am confident he will not only meet these high standards but will set a fine precedent for all succeeding DNIs to follow. I ask my colleagues to act quickly to confirm Ambassador Negroponte to lead our intelligence community so he may begin in earnest to make the difficult changes we believe are sorely needed. I thank the Chair, I thank the managers of this nomination, and I urge prompt confirmation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is a privilege today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the accomplishments of Dr. Paul W. Doerrer, the 2005 recipient of the Missouri Association of School Administrators' Robert L. Pearce Award. The Pearce Award is the most prestigious honor that can be bestowed on a school superintendent in the State of Missouri, particularly so because the honoree is selected by a committee of peers. The Ritenour School District in St. Louis County has been fortunate to have the leadership skills of Dr. Doerrer for the past 35 years. The Missouri Legislature and State board of education were in the forefront and enacted standards-based education long before the passage of No Child Left Behind. In fact, the standards set in Missouri are among the highest in the Nation. Under the able instructional leadership of Dr. Doerrer, the Ritenour School District has not only met but in many cases has exceeded the rigorous goals our State has set for student achievement of adequate yearly progress. In addition, under Dr. Doerrer's able leadership, the Ritenour School District was recently named as one of the ``Best Places to Work'' by the St. Louis Business Journal. Dr. Doerrer has truly exemplified instructional leadership in our State. Whether it is staff development, instructional technology, human resources, or data driven decisionmaking, Dr. Doerrer has provided the vision and energy that has brought distinction to the Ritenour School District. It is with admiration that I honor Dr. Doerrer today and congratulate him as the 19th recipient of the Robert L. Pearce Award.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Mrs. Sue Panetta-Lee will soon be installed as president of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Incorporated, of Missouri for 2005-2006. Sue is dedicated to the mission and vision of Business and Professional Women, BMW, and supports the legislative platform at the State and national levels. Sue has been an active member since 1990 when she was introduced to BMW through the Young Careerist Program. She is a member of the St. Louis Metropolitan BMW in good standing and has served on and chaired many committees. Sue has experience in grant writing, program creation and implementation. She has presented training on numerous occasions in the community and for BMW on leadership, legislation, and many other topics of interest. Sue was instrumental in planning the state legislative conference in February 2000. Sue is a team player and is a self-starter with decision making and leadership abilities. She has experience as a mentor and is devoted to empowering all persons to be equal as human beings. Sue is a dedicated and creative person who will speak up for ideas that promote BMW and women's issues. She believes that we grow more from embracing our differences and learning from each other's experiences and knowledge. Sue is currently self-employed since 1998 in private practice as a Licensed Mental Health Therapist. Prior to that, Sue was clinical director for a community health agency for eight years. She has worked in other capacities as a social worker in the community for hospitals and in long-term care facilities, working with all age groups. Sue has a total of 22 years of work experience in the mental health field. Currently Sue is serving as part of the Executive Board in the position of First Vice President, and is a member of American Association of University Women, Illinois Counselors' Association, and the Illinois Coalition to End Homelessness. Sue was a Young Careerist representing her district at the state level. She has held all positions at the local level with the exception of treasurer. At the state level Sue has served as Legislative, Membership, and Fund-raising Chairs. At the National level Sue has served on the Governance Task Force Committee. As President of BMW, Sue will make executive committee and various other appointments. She will represent the State Federation at numerous national and state functions, and interpret the BMW/USA programs, policies, procedures, and objectives to the State Federation. I commend Sue for her outstanding service to the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. I wish Mrs. Panetta-Lee and her husband all the best.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Maryland is also seeking the floor. We both have important meetings at 3 o'clock. I wondered how long the Senator from Maryland will take?

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments raised by the Senator from New Hampshire. As chairman of the new Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD, I understand this measure would fall within the general government provisions of this bill. While I think all of us share concerns that have been expressed by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We appreciate what the Senator is trying to do, but I don't believe his amendment provides the appropriate remedy to the problems he has described. Using Federal funds for the purpose of propaganda is already unlawful under section 1913 of title 18 of the United States Code, and the governmentwide general provisions title of the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Act includes further restrictions from using appropriated funds for propaganda. Section 624 of the 2005 Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Act states: No part of any appropriations contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress. The distinction between educating the public about an issue and advocating a policy is not always obvious. If the Senator's amendment better defined appropriate communications by Federal agencies from publicity or propaganda, I would join with the Senator in support. The Senator's amendment, however, does not add any clarity to the murky waters of advocacy and does not make the line between education and advocacy any brighter, and in fact may have some untoward consequences that I feel are sufficient to kill the amendment. The uniform practice of the Federal Government is and has been to provide full disclosure that video news releases or other matters are prepared or funded by a Federal agency. The sponsoring Government agency identifies itself at the beginning of a video news release. Just as newspaper reporters and editors parse through their press releases issued by Federal agencies, television news rooms make editorial and content decisions about how to use video news releases. It is, in fact, an editorial decision of the broadcast station to air or not to air the agency identification. The Senator's amendment, however, would begin the practice of allowing the Federal Government to make editorial decisions and dictating broadcast content of news reports. Alternatively, it would require that any use of material supplied by the Federal Government must be disclosed in a manner that I believe would have a chilling impact on the freedom of speech and on the freedom of press. Such mandate on the broadcast media may in fact be unconstitutional. If this amendment were adopted, it may have the unintended consequence of reducing the use of this important tool, thereby undermining the ability of the Federal Government to meet its obligation to inform the public of important information. I believe the impact would be felt in rural areas, especially as broadcasters in small and medium markets rely on video news releases more than their big-city colleagues. If we go back and look at the history, we see that video news releases have been used by Government agencies since the beginning of video. The USDA produced some of the first footage of the Wright brothers' early flight tests in the early 1919s, as well as the highly acclaimed Dust Bowl documentary, ``The Plow That Broke the Plains,'' 1935. In the 1980s, to respond to a changing broadcast environment, USDA established a weekly satellite feed of material for news and farm broadcasters. This included ready-to-air feature stories, sometimes called video news releases. The information includes where there are signups for commodity or disaster programs; promoting producer participation in county committee elections; new farming practices or technologies; or important crop reports and surveys. From the Department of Health and Human Services, there has been a long list of video news releases such as the Surgeon General's Osteoporosis and Bone Health Report; educating the public health officials on how to recognize anthrax; CDC in post 9/11, educating the public on CDC's capabilities; healthy baby news releases, which I have been very interested in. The Health Resource Services Administration put out a video news release educating parents and parents-to-be on the health care of their newborns. There have been efforts to educate women of childbearing age about the absolute necessity of including 400 micrograms of the appropriate vitamins in their diets to prevent tooth defects. The CDC has educated public and health communities about the proper use of antibiotics and the potential problems of overuse of antibiotics. The IRS has produced VNRs on two topics: how to file electronically, and the earned income tax credit. The goal was to generate coverage of the e-filing to help Americans understand qualifications for claiming the EITC. These news releases were produced by an advertising agency, and pitched in the media outlets by our IRS media specialists who provided full disclosure to the media outlets if they were from the IRS. This amendment goes further, however, and says the entity using this information must include a clear notice that it was prepared or funded by a Federal agency. That is a requirement on not only broadcasters but on newspapers, which I think steps over the line. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia pointed out, the FCC yesterday unanimously clarified the rules applying to broadcasters, saying they must disclose to the viewer the origin of video news releases, though the agency does not specify what form that disclosure must take. Commissioner Adelstein, a Democrat, said: We have a responsibility to tell broadcasters that they have to let people know where the material is coming from. Viewers would think it was a real news story when it might be from government or a big corporation trying to influence how they think. This would be put them in a better position to decide for themselves what to make of it. The FCC has already acted in this area. I am very much concerned that the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would go even further in attempting to dictate by congressional action what should be reported, not only in video or electronic news stories but in print media stories as well. That is objectionable. That would cause many problems for media of all types. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Mikulski, Talent, Harkin, Roberts and Coleman to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production. We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people. In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology. In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources. Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes. Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations. It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do. We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and others have developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition. We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology. But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today seeks to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future. This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University. I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm. In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world. This legislation is supported by the some 22 Member and Associate Member Societies of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, as well as the Institute of Food Technologists, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, the Council for Agricultural Research, the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the American Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations. Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. Today, Congressman Gutknecht is offering companion legislation in the House. I congratulate him on his leadership in promoting science and I am pleased to be working on this with him. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Mikulski, Talent, Harkin, Roberts and Coleman to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production. We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people. In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology. In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources. Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes. Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations. It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do. We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and others have developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition. We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology. But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today seeks to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future. This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University. I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm. In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world. This legislation is supported by the some 22 Member and Associate Member Societies of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, as well as the Institute of Food Technologists, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, the Council for Agricultural Research, the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the American Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations. Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. Today, Congressman Gutknecht is offering companion legislation in the House. I congratulate him on his leadership in promoting science and I am pleased to be working on this with him. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear the thought-provoking comments of the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I thank him much for the work he has done there. Some of the things he said reminded me of an analogy to a totally different situation. When somebody was misusing some scientific facts, the comment was, They used the facts like a drunk uses a light post--for support rather than for illumination. But I look forward to reading the book ``State of Fear'' by Dr. Crichton. We appreciate the ongoing discussions that we will have.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced, along with Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski, Obama, Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici and Coleman, the 2005 Water Resources Development Act, S. 728. The programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are invaluable to this Nation. They provide drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, environmental protection and restoration, protection from floods, emergency response, and recreation. Few agencies in the Federal Government touch so many citizens, and with such little recognition by many, I might add, and they do it on a relatively small budget. They provide one-quarter of our Nation's total hydropower output, operate 456 lakes in 43 States, hosting 33 percent of all freshwater lake fishing. They facilitate the movement of 630 million tons of cargo valued at over $73 billion annually through our inland system. They manage over 12 million acres of land and water; provide 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and businesses; and they have provided an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment one-seventh of that value. During the 1993 flood alone, an experience which I witnessed firsthand, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time. Our ports move over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade by weight and 75 percent by value. Between 1970 and 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased 24-fold, and 70 percent since 1994. That was an average annual growth rate of 10.2 percent, nearly double the pace of the gross domestic product growth during the same period. Unfortunately, the American Society of Civil Engineers has issued a grade on our navigable waterways infrastructure. They gave it a D- with over 50 percent of the locks ``functionally obsolete'' despite increased demand. Recently, a story in the Wall Street Journal warned of the current condition. It begins: The nation's freight-bearing waterway system, plagued by age and breakdowns, is saddling the many companies that rely on the network with a growing number of supply disruptions and added costs. While some consider it an anachronism in the age of e- commerce, the system remains vital to a broad swath of the economy, carrying everything from jet fuel and coal to salt and the wax for coating milk cartons. The network stretches 12,000 miles, mostly through the nation's vast web of rivers, and relies on a series of dams and locks, which are enormous chambers that act as elevators for moving barges from one elevation of water to another. Much of the infrastructure was built early in the last century. It's showing the effects of time and, according to some, of neglect. Old equipment takes longer to repair, and it's more vulnerable to nature's extremes. The bipartisan bill is one that traditionally is produced by the Congress every 2 years. However, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 2000. The longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up, the more complicated the demands upon the bill become, making it harder and harder to win approval. For some, the bill is small; for others, it is too big; for some, the new regulations are too onerous; and for others, the new regulations are not onerous enough. Nevertheless, I believe we have struck a balance here, largely on a bipartisan basis, that disciplines the new projects to criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water resource priorities. With the new regulations, we have embraced a commonsense, bipartisan proposal by Senators Landrieu and Cochran, similar to the bipartisan House agreement that requires major projects to be subject to independent peer review, and requires, if necessary, mitigation for projects be completed at the same time the project is completed, or, in special cases, no longer than 1 year after project completion. This compromise will impose a cost on communities, particularly smaller communities, but it is not as onerous as the new regulations proposed last year which ultimately prevented a final agreement from being reached between the House and the Senate. The commanding features of this bill are its landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. Nearly 60 percent of the bill authorizes such efforts, including environmental restoration of the Everglades, coastal Louisiana, Chesapeake Bay, Missouri River, Long Island Sound, Salton Sea, Connecticut, the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, and others. Additionally, we have included the previously introduced bipartisan proposal to modernize the aging locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, designed 70 years ago for paddlewheel boats. We should do simply for the future what our predecessors did for the present and build the systems designed to improve our competitiveness, our standard of living, and environmental protection. It does not happen overnight and we have experienced far too much delay already. We spent 12 years and $70 million to complete what was supposed to be a 6- year, $25 million study. Without a competitive transportation system, the promise of expanded trade and commercial growth is empty, job opportunities are lost, and we will be unprepared for the challenges of this new century. A lot of people don't appreciate the fact that one medium-sized river barge tow carries the same freight as 870 trucks. That should speak pretty significantly for the efficiency and environmental protection of water transportation. Eighty years ago, leaders in this Nation wanting to build a better tomorrow made investments in our productive capacity to help our producers ship goods and hire workers. At that time, investments were expensive and controversial. Some even said the investments were not justified. The Corps said they were not satisfied. But Congress decided otherwise, that it was a better idea to shape the future rather than to try to make unsound predictions of the future. Eighty million tons of annual cargo later, it is clear Congress was right in that judgment. In the last 35 years, waterborne commerce on the upper Mississippi River has tripled, but the system is not suited to this century. It is a one-lane highway in a four-lane world economy. If we fail to act, we lose and our foreign competitors win, outsourcing jobs by Government paralysis. Last year, the United States Department of Agriculture chief economist Keith Collins predicted corn exports through the Gulf would grow 45 percent in 10 years. We asked him why he wasn't making a 50- year prediction, which was asked of that ridiculous 12-year, $70 million study. He said nobody in their right mind could make a prediction 50 years in the future and it was taking a lot of assumptions to make a 10-year prediction. But we cannot see the exports grow, we cannot get revenue for our farmers, we cannot strengthen our rural communities and improve our balance of trade if trade is constrained by the transportation straitjacket we currently have. A good friend of mine from Alma, MO, Neal Bredehoeft, is a soybean producer from Alma, MO, and president of the American Soybean Association. He said yesterday in St. Louis: While U.S. farmers are fighting to maintain market share in a fiercely competitive global marketplace, our international competitors are investing in transportation infrastructure. Argentina has invested over $650 million in their transportation systems to make their exports more competitive. Brazil is restructuring its water transportation network to reduce the cost of shipping soybeans by at least 75 percent. Due in large part to these efforts, the two countries have captured 50 percent of the total growth in world soybean sales during the past three years. Making the necessary upgrades to improve the Mississippi and Illinois waterways would also protect jobs. Navigation on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers supports over 400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support for this proposal and the support from labor, the Farm Bureau, the corn growers, soybean producers, Nature Conservancy, the diverse members of MARC 2000, and other shippers and carriers fighting to protect and build markets in an increasingly competitive marketplace while improving protection for this vital resource. It is important that we understand the budget implications of this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult budget realities currently. It is critical we be mindful of these realities as we make investments in the infrastructure that supports the people in our Nation who make and grow and buy and sell things so we can make our economy grow, create jobs, and secure our future. This is an authorization bill. It does not spend $1. I repeat, regrettably, it does not spend $1. It merely authorizes the spending. With the allocation provided through the budget, the Appropriations Committee and the Congress and the President will fund such projects deemed to be of the highest priority and those remaining will not be funded because the budget will not permit. Strictly speaking, this bill provides options, not commitments. I wish it were otherwise. I thank my colleagues on the committee and their staff for the very hard work devoted to this difficult matter. I particularly thank Chairman Inhofe for his forbearance. I believe if Members work cooperatively and aim for the center and not the fringe, we can get a bill completed this year. If demands exist that the bill be away from the center, going to the fringe, imposing unreasonable restrictions, we will go another year with Congress unable to complete our work as we did last year, unable to move forward on the 60 percent of economic and environmental restoration and the 40 percent of building the infrastructure we need to strengthen our economy and make sure we remain competitive in the 21st century. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski, Obama, Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici, and Coleman, the 2005 Water Resources Development Act. The programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are invaluable to this Nation. They provide drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, environmental protection and restoration, protection from floods, emergency response, and recreation. Few agencies in the Federal Government touch so many citizens and they do it on a relatively small budget. They provide one- quarter of our Nation's total hydropower output; operate 456 lakes in 43 States hosting 33 percent of all freshwater lake fishing; move 630 million tons of cargo valued at over $73 billion annually through our inland system; manage over 12 million acres of land and water; provide 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and business; and have prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment one-seventh that value. During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time. Our ports move over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade by weight and 75 percent by value. Between 1970 and 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased 24 fold, and 70 percent since 1994. That was an average annual growth rate of 10.2 percent, which was nearly double the pace of the Gross Domestic Product growth during the same period. Unfortunately, the American Society of Civil Engineers grades navigable waterways infrastructure D- with over 50 percent of the locks ``functionally obsolete'' despite increased demand. This bipartisan bill is one that traditionally is produced by the Congress every two years, however, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 2000 and the longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more complicated the demands upon the bill become making it harder and harder to win approval. For some, this bill is too small and for others, too big. For some, the new regulations are too onerous and for others, the new regulations are not onerous enough. Nevertheless, I believe we have struck a balance here that disciplines the new projects to criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water resources priorities. With the new regulations, we have embraced a common sense bipartisan proposal by Senators Landrieu and Cochran similar to the bi-partisan House agreement that requires major projects to be subject to independent peer review and requires that necessary mitigation for projects be completed at the same time the project is completed, or, in special cases, no longer than one year after project completion. This will impose a cost on communities, particularly smaller communities, but it is not as onerous as the new regulations proposed last year which ultimately prevented a final agreement from being reached between the House and Senate. The commanding feature of the bill is its landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. Nearly 60 percent of the bill authorizes such efforts, including environmental restoration of the Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, Chesapeake Bay, Missouri River, Long Island Sound, Salton Sea, Upper Connecticut, and the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, and others. Additionally, it is important to understand the budget implications of this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult budget realities currently and it is critical that we be mindful of those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure that supports the people in our nation who make and grow and buy and sell things so that we can grow our economy, create jobs, and secure our future. This is an authorization bill. It does not spend one dollar. I repeat, it does not spend one dollar. It makes projects eligible for funding through the appropriations process that operates within the restrictions of the budget Congress provides it. With the allocation provided, the Appropriations Committee and the Congress and the President will fund such projects deemed of the highest priority and those remaining will not be funded because the budget will not permit it. This WRDA process simply permits project consideration during the process of appropriations and I expect some will measure up and others will not. I hear some suggest that we should not authorize anything new until all other previously-authorized projects are funded. That, of course, is nonsense because it assumes falsely that all projects authorized five and 10 and 50 years ago are higher priority than those in this package. We have de-authorized a great number of projects in this bill and I expect there will be more added as we proceed and then the remainder will have to face the stingy budget process that will prioritize the rest. While the majority of this legislation is for environmental protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic initiative we include provides transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. As the world becomes more competitive, we must also. In the heartland, the efficiency, reliability, capacity, and safety of our transportation options are critical--often make-or-break. In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities with a combined value of more than $4 billion which include coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, iron, steel, minerals and other commodities. As we look 50 years into the future, and as we anticipate and try to promote commercial and economic growth, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: should we have a system that permits and promotes growth, or should we be satisfied to restrict our growth to the confines of a transportation straight jacket designed not for 2050, but for 1950 for paddle wheel boats? Further, we must ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made to address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these great waterways. In both cases, the answer is, ``Of course we should modernize and improve.'' We have a system which is in environmental and economic decline. Jobs and markets and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife are at stake. We cannot be for increased trade, commercial growth, and job creation without supporting the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to move goods from buyers to sellers. New efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make or break opportunities in the international marketplace. Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the Mississippi River was not justified. Congress decided that its role was not to try to predict the future but to shape the future and decided to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million tons per year later, it is clear that the decision was wise. Now, that system that was designed for paddlewheel boats and to last 50 years is nearly 70 years old and we must make decisions that will shape the next 50-70 years. As we look ahead, we must promote growth policies that help Americans who produce and employ. We must work for policies that promote economic growth, job creation, and environmental sustainability. We know that trade and economic growth can be fostered or it can be discouraged by policies and other realities which include the quality of our transportation infrastructure. So in 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 years, where will the growth in transportation occur to accommodate the growth in demand for commercial shipping? The Department of Transportation suggests that congestion on our roads and rails will double in the next quarter century. The fact of the matter is that the great untapped capacity is on our water. This is good news because water transportation is efficient, it is safe, it conserves fuel, and it protects the air and the environment. One medium-sized barge tow can carry the freight of 870 trucks. That fact alone speaks volumes to the benefits of water. If we can, would we rather have 870 diesel engines on the roads of downtown St. Louis, or two diesel engines on the water. The veteran Chief Economist at USDA testified that transportation efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets are higher prices are ``fundamentally related.'' He predicts that corn exports over the next 10 years will rise 45 percent, 70 percent of which will travel down the Mississippi. Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the Upper Mississippi River has more than tripled. The system currently carries 60 percent of our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean exports and it does so at two-thirds the cost of rail--when rail is available. Over the previous 12 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have spent $70 million completing a six year study. During that period, there have been 35 meetings of the Governors Liaison Committee, 28 meetings on the Economic Coordinating Committee, among the States along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways, and there have been 44 meetings of the Navigation and Environmental Coordination Committee. Additionally, there have been 130 briefings for special interest groups, 24 newsletters. There have been six sets of public meetings in 46 locations with over 4,000 people in attendance. To say the least, this has been a very long, very transparent, and very representative process. However, while we have been studying, our competitors have been building. Given the extraordinary delay so far, and given the reality that large scale construction takes not weeks or months, but decades, further delay is no longer an option. This is why I am pleased to be joined by a bipartisan group of Senators who agree that we must improve the efficiency and the environmental sustainability of our great resources. This plan gets the Corps back in the business of building the future, rather than just haggling about predicting the future. More will need to be done later on ecosystem and lock expansions further upstream, but this begins the improvement schedule underway. In this legislation, we authorize $1.58 billion for ecosystem restoration-almost 2 times the federal cost of lock capacity expansion which we authorize on locks 20-25 on the Mississippi River and Peoria and LaGrange on the Illinois. The new 1,200 foot locks on the Mississippi River will provide equal capacity in the bottleneck region below the 1,200 foot lock 19 at Keokuk and above locks 26 and 27 near St. Louis. Half the cost of the new locks will be paid for by private users who pay into the Inland Waterways Trust fund. Additional funds will be provided for mitigation and small scale and nonstructural measures to improve efficiency. As we look ahead, the locks at 14-18 will have to be addressed as will further investments to ecosystem restoration efforts. This effort is supported by a broad-based group of the States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who pay taxes into the Trust Fund for improvements. Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the carpenters, corngrowers, farm bureau, soybeans, the diverse membership of MARC2000. I thank my colleagues and their staff for the hard work devoted to this difficult matter and I thank particularly chairman Inhofe for his forbearance. I believe that if members work cooperatively and aim for the center and not the fringe, that we can get a bill completed this year. If demands exist that the bill be away from the center toward the fringe, we will go another Congress without completing our work as we witnessed last year.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski, Obama, Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici, and Coleman, the 2005 Water Resources Development Act. The programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are invaluable to this Nation. They provide drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, environmental protection and restoration, protection from floods, emergency response, and recreation. Few agencies in the Federal Government touch so many citizens and they do it on a relatively small budget. They provide one- quarter of our Nation's total hydropower output; operate 456 lakes in 43 States hosting 33 percent of all freshwater lake fishing; move 630 million tons of cargo valued at over $73 billion annually through our inland system; manage over 12 million acres of land and water; provide 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and business; and have prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment one-seventh that value. During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time. Our ports move over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade by weight and 75 percent by value. Between 1970 and 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased 24 fold, and 70 percent since 1994. That was an average annual growth rate of 10.2 percent, which was nearly double the pace of the Gross Domestic Product growth during the same period. Unfortunately, the American Society of Civil Engineers grades navigable waterways infrastructure D- with over 50 percent of the locks ``functionally obsolete'' despite increased demand. This bipartisan bill is one that traditionally is produced by the Congress every two years, however, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 2000 and the longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more complicated the demands upon the bill become making it harder and harder to win approval. For some, this bill is too small and for others, too big. For some, the new regulations are too onerous and for others, the new regulations are not onerous enough. Nevertheless, I believe we have struck a balance here that disciplines the new projects to criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water resources priorities. With the new regulations, we have embraced a common sense bipartisan proposal by Senators Landrieu and Cochran similar to the bi-partisan House agreement that requires major projects to be subject to independent peer review and requires that necessary mitigation for projects be completed at the same time the project is completed, or, in special cases, no longer than one year after project completion. This will impose a cost on communities, particularly smaller communities, but it is not as onerous as the new regulations proposed last year which ultimately prevented a final agreement from being reached between the House and Senate. The commanding feature of the bill is its landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. Nearly 60 percent of the bill authorizes such efforts, including environmental restoration of the Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, Chesapeake Bay, Missouri River, Long Island Sound, Salton Sea, Upper Connecticut, and the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, and others. Additionally, it is important to understand the budget implications of this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult budget realities currently and it is critical that we be mindful of those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure that supports the people in our nation who make and grow and buy and sell things so that we can grow our economy, create jobs, and secure our future. This is an authorization bill. It does not spend one dollar. I repeat, it does not spend one dollar. It makes projects eligible for funding through the appropriations process that operates within the restrictions of the budget Congress provides it. With the allocation provided, the Appropriations Committee and the Congress and the President will fund such projects deemed of the highest priority and those remaining will not be funded because the budget will not permit it. This WRDA process simply permits project consideration during the process of appropriations and I expect some will measure up and others will not. I hear some suggest that we should not authorize anything new until all other previously-authorized projects are funded. That, of course, is nonsense because it assumes falsely that all projects authorized five and 10 and 50 years ago are higher priority than those in this package. We have de-authorized a great number of projects in this bill and I expect there will be more added as we proceed and then the remainder will have to face the stingy budget process that will prioritize the rest. While the majority of this legislation is for environmental protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic initiative we include provides transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. As the world becomes more competitive, we must also. In the heartland, the efficiency, reliability, capacity, and safety of our transportation options are critical--often make-or-break. In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities with a combined value of more than $4 billion which include coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, iron, steel, minerals and other commodities. As we look 50 years into the future, and as we anticipate and try to promote commercial and economic growth, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: should we have a system that permits and promotes growth, or should we be satisfied to restrict our growth to the confines of a transportation straight jacket designed not for 2050, but for 1950 for paddle wheel boats? Further, we must ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made to address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these great waterways. In both cases, the answer is, ``Of course we should modernize and improve.'' We have a system which is in environmental and economic decline. Jobs and markets and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife are at stake. We cannot be for increased trade, commercial growth, and job creation without supporting the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to move goods from buyers to sellers. New efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make or break opportunities in the international marketplace. Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the Mississippi River was not justified. Congress decided that its role was not to try to predict the future but to shape the future and decided to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million tons per year later, it is clear that the decision was wise. Now, that system that was designed for paddlewheel boats and to last 50 years is nearly 70 years old and we must make decisions that will shape the next 50-70 years. As we look ahead, we must promote growth policies that help Americans who produce and employ. We must work for policies that promote economic growth, job creation, and environmental sustainability. We know that trade and economic growth can be fostered or it can be discouraged by policies and other realities which include the quality of our transportation infrastructure. So in 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 years, where will the growth in transportation occur to accommodate the growth in demand for commercial shipping? The Department of Transportation suggests that congestion on our roads and rails will double in the next quarter century. The fact of the matter is that the great untapped capacity is on our water. This is good news because water transportation is efficient, it is safe, it conserves fuel, and it protects the air and the environment. One medium-sized barge tow can carry the freight of 870 trucks. That fact alone speaks volumes to the benefits of water. If we can, would we rather have 870 diesel engines on the roads of downtown St. Louis, or two diesel engines on the water. The veteran Chief Economist at USDA testified that transportation efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets are higher prices are ``fundamentally related.'' He predicts that corn exports over the next 10 years will rise 45 percent, 70 percent of which will travel down the Mississippi. Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the Upper Mississippi River has more than tripled. The system currently carries 60 percent of our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean exports and it does so at two-thirds the cost of rail--when rail is available. Over the previous 12 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have spent $70 million completing a six year study. During that period, there have been 35 meetings of the Governors Liaison Committee, 28 meetings on the Economic Coordinating Committee, among the States along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways, and there have been 44 meetings of the Navigation and Environmental Coordination Committee. Additionally, there have been 130 briefings for special interest groups, 24 newsletters. There have been six sets of public meetings in 46 locations with over 4,000 people in attendance. To say the least, this has been a very long, very transparent, and very representative process. However, while we have been studying, our competitors have been building. Given the extraordinary delay so far, and given the reality that large scale construction takes not weeks or months, but decades, further delay is no longer an option. This is why I am pleased to be joined by a bipartisan group of Senators who agree that we must improve the efficiency and the environmental sustainability of our great resources. This plan gets the Corps back in the business of building the future, rather than just haggling about predicting the future. More will need to be done later on ecosystem and lock expansions further upstream, but this begins the improvement schedule underway. In this legislation, we authorize $1.58 billion for ecosystem restoration-almost 2 times the federal cost of lock capacity expansion which we authorize on locks 20-25 on the Mississippi River and Peoria and LaGrange on the Illinois. The new 1,200 foot locks on the Mississippi River will provide equal capacity in the bottleneck region below the 1,200 foot lock 19 at Keokuk and above locks 26 and 27 near St. Louis. Half the cost of the new locks will be paid for by private users who pay into the Inland Waterways Trust fund. Additional funds will be provided for mitigation and small scale and nonstructural measures to improve efficiency. As we look ahead, the locks at 14-18 will have to be addressed as will further investments to ecosystem restoration efforts. This effort is supported by a broad-based group of the States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who pay taxes into the Trust Fund for improvements. Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the carpenters, corngrowers, farm bureau, soybeans, the diverse membership of MARC2000. I thank my colleagues and their staff for the hard work devoted to this difficult matter and I thank particularly chairman Inhofe for his forbearance. I believe that if members work cooperatively and aim for the center and not the fringe, that we can get a bill completed this year. If demands exist that the bill be away from the center toward the fringe, we will go another Congress without completing our work as we witnessed last year.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, last week I introduced a bill, S. 586, as an alternative to my previous bill, S. 290, regarding the taxation of FEMA disaster mitigation grants. Both bills are designed to prevent the IRS from taxing these grants. With the help of Senators Vitter, Talent, Voinovich, Nelson, Feinstein, and Landrieu, I introduced this new legislation as a companion to Congressman Mark Foley's bill, H.R. 1134, in House of Representatives. I commend Mr. Foley for his hard work and dedication to this proposal. Also, I commend the Department of Treasury for recognizing the serious nature of this issue and committing to work with Congress to resolve it. This new legislation adds additional language to ensure that FEMA disaster mitigation grant recipients do not abuse the tax-free nature of the grant by capitalizing on the increased value of his/her property. In addition, the new language provides for a prospective effective date. It is important to note, however, that the President's budget proposal gives the Treasury Department the administrative authority to apply the policies of S. 586 and H.R. 1134 to cases involving mitigation payments where the statue of limitations has not expired. It is my understanding that the Department of Treasury has agreed to issue a notice to the IRS clearly indicating that, in accordance with the policies of S. 586 and H.R. 1134, those taxpayers who are in receipt of these mitigation grants prior to the enactment of this legislation will not be subject to extra tax liabilities. This legislation came about as a result of a direct threat by the IRS to tax these disaster mitigation grants. As I have said before, I am absolutely stunned at this latest antic by the IRS. The last thing Americans who are working to prevent potential destruction from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes need is for Government-grant funding to be subject to tax. My bill ensures that the IRS's disaster tax does not see the light of day. I ask unanimous consent that two letters from the Department of Treasury be printed in the Record. These letters are written to the chairmen of both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee expressing support for S. 586 and H.R. 1134 and committing to prevent retroactive taxation at the request of Congress.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in past weeks I have come to the floor to report on the tremendous job that America and other allies did in assisting relief from the devastating tsunami that struck in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand last December. Later I spoke about the very promising development of broad-based support for moderate Islam among leaders in Southeast Asia. The constructive work being done there is an extremely important counter to the Wahabiism strain of Islam teaching which subverts the teaching of a peaceful religion to promote terrorist attacks on any and all who are regarded as infidels. In addition, Hadhari, or ``civilization'' Islam, preaches fair and equal treatment for women and tolerance of views of other religions. As former President Richard Nixon detailed in one of his last books before his death, developing strong and supportive relationships with moderate Islamic countries is of critical interest to the United States. He had warned of the dangers of radical Islam teachings even before we experienced the overseas terrorist attacks against Americans in the 1990s, culminating in the massive attacks of September 11, 2001, on our homeland. In this area, former President Nixon was prescient, and laid out an important principle for us to follow today. With Southeast Asia and its large Muslim population as the second front in the war on terror, we have the opportunity through constructive engagement to help those countries win their wars on terrorism without the need for massive military actions such as we have undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq to root out governments that harbor terrorists. As President Bush said in his State of the Union speech, fostering and encouraging the development of democratic, free societies throughout the world is not only an humanitarium imperative for us, it is also in our own security interest because free governments, democratically elected, as much less likely to engage in aggressive military action against their neighbors, and threaten peace and security in the world. In addition, with the proper diplomatic, economic, and strategic support, we can help those governments as they fight to eliminate the threat of terrorist activities within their borders. In a region previously dominated by monarchies, communist rule, and autocratic governments, democracy is making strides in Southeast Asia. As in all evolutions of democratic societies, the progress is not without its stumbles, its reverses, and occasionally undesirable results from the democratic process. Southeast Asia still has significant problem areas where democracy and human rights are not flourishing. As Natan Sharansky has said in his book The Case for Democracy, and in his presentation to Senators here in the Capitol on February 9th, the difference between a free society and a fear society can be measured by the town square test. Can a citizen go to the town square and express opposition and criticism of the government without fear of reprisal? Southeast Asia has glaring examples of the fear society, which is the opposite of the free society in Sharansky's terms. Communist North Vietnam has shown some interest in economic development and some tolerance of free markets, but it is far from a free society. According to the measurements of Freedom House--which views political and civil freedoms--other countries regarded as not free are Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei. The worst offender in the Freedom House rankings, and in my own view, is the state of Myanmar, which we previously knew as Burma. That country has gained international attention for its arrest, imprisonment, and abuse of Aung San Suu Kyi, that country's leading political opposition leader. Most recently, Thailand--among the most free and open societies in all of Asia--overwhelmingly re-elected the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawantra, a very successful business man with strong managerial skills. Personally, I was relieved to see that apparently there was no weight given to his opponent's charges that I personally had lobbied Thaksin and convinced him to allow the introduction of biotechnology through genetically modified food products into Thailand. In truth, on my visits to Thailand with world renowned plant biotechnology leader, Dr. Roger Beachy of the Danforth Plant Science Center in Saint Louis, Missouri, we and our Ambassador discussed with the Prime Minister making available the resources of our bio-technology regulatory agencies in the U.S. so that Thai scientists and officials would have the technical capacity to make judgments for themselves about the safety of proposed bio-technology plantings and GMO food products, which hold tremendous promise to cure crop and plant disease in Southeast Asia, to feed the countries throughout the world and perhaps deliver vital vaccines to less developed countries. In Indonesia, the voters have elected a new President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who is committed to operating a corruption-free government, dedicated to recognition of human rights, free markets, and civilian control of the military with full protections for the civilian population. It is worth noting that the President, popularly known as SBY, participated in the last International Military Education and Training program--IMET--with our military at Fort Leavenworth, KS before Congress effectively cut off IMET participation for Indonesia military leaders. He also received a Masters' Degree from Webster University in Kansas City, MO. In Malaysia, the newly-elected Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi--of whom I spoke previously--noting his support for Hadhari Islam, has taken steps to rid his government of the favoritism and corruption of the previous administration, which sapped the economic growth potential of that very prosperous country. In the Philippines, popularly-elected President Gloria Arroyo is facing challenges within her own government, but she has been democratically elected and brought major change in the life of that country following the corruption and abuses of Ferdinand Marcos. Singapore has a new Prime Minister, Lee Hsien-Long, who is the son of the long-time ruling figure in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, now known as the Minister Mentor. Although some have charged that it is highly unlikely that the people of Singapore could choose a candidate not associated with the Ruling Party, I believe that Singapore would pass Natan Sharansky's test of a free society rather than a fear society on the town forum test. In addition, Singapore has been one of our staunchest allies strategically, economically, and in the war on terrorism. When the United States military forces were booted out of the Philippines, Singapore responded by developing a deepwater port where our large warships could dock and refuel and resupply. They moved very swiftly to crack down on terror rings including the very dangerous Jemaah Islamiyah, JI, when they discovered threats against United States and Australia Embassies in that country. In addition, we have recently completed the first Free Trade Agreement in Asia with the Singaporeans. In addition to supporting democracies and free societies and fighting terrorism, the United States has a very significant strategic interest in Southeast Asia. As many leaders in that region have told me, privately, they are concerned that the United States active engagement and association with those countries is essential to stop China from extending hegemony over the region. China has made many moves recently economically to gain control over the markets of Southeast Asia with offers of free trade and other inducements. In addition, China has flexed its muscle in the region by military maneuvers in the South China Sea to lay claim potentially to the significant petroleum reserves in that area. States of Southeast Asia, notably Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia, control the important Malacca Straits through which one quarter of all the shipping in the world passes, and one half of the petroleum products carried by ocean-going vessels pass. The Southeast Asia nations which have been generally supportive of the United States stand in contrast to the People's Republic of China, which has long opposed our efforts against terrorism and may be engaging in proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. The influence of China can be seen already in support for lifting United Nations sanctions and the Arms Embargo of China. There are many who feel that China may be building military capability which could be a threat to world peace and security as well as to the United States--all the more reason to prevent excessive China influence or control in Southeast Asia. In addition to our strategic interests, Southeast Asia is a very important economic trading partner for the United States. Malaysia is our tenth largest export market and ASEAN has passed Japan and is now the United States' third largest trading partner; two-way trade stands at $120 billion. In 2003 United States exports to Singapore were $19 billion, to Malaysia over $17 billion. Although Thailand with $6.8 billion imports from the United States, the Philippines with $5.4 billion, and Indonesia with $2.8 billion, are relatively smaller, they also offer opportunities with economic progress to be much more significant trading partners with us. Farmers in Missouri and throughout the Midwest felt the severe pain of the collapse of the Southeast Asia markets in 1997 and in 1998. Our previous $12 billion a year agricultural exports in the mid-1990s dropped to almost nothing during that period. The impact of that on farm prices in the agricultural heartland was extremely harsh. Farmers suffered significant losses of income, and rural communities dependent upon agriculture felt the pain, everywhere from equipment dealers to retails stores. Missouri farmers have been very relieved to see the economies, and, thus, the demand for agricultural products recover in the ASEAN region. At the same time we have good economic ties with the region the United States has image problems that cannot be ignored. The problems with the United States start with its support for Israel in its battle with the Palestinians and its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This has brought great concern in Muslim countries and the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammed--the first Muslim to come to his United States Embassy to register his sympathies after the September 11, 2001 attack--became an even harsher critic of the United States when we took the battle against terrorism to Afghanistan and then to Iraq. Previously, I and other members of the Senate, had heard him deliver in the mid-1990s stinging criticism of the United States and other peoples with light skin--especially Jews--for currency manipulation which he felt had brought on the collapse of the Thai baht which triggered the Asian economic collapse and problems with his currency in Malaysia. There is also the inevitable reaction against a very large and powerful country when we have a presence in the region such as we did during the tsunami relief efforts. At the time we deployed our aircraft carrier strike force with the helicopters and marine copter ship with troops to the region, a very good friend of America in the region told me the United States needed to ``tiptoe'' coming into the region. I noted to him it was difficult to tiptoe when you have to bring an aircraft carrier strike force with helicopters into a region to provide the airlift and the personnel needed for vital relief. I noted his concerns and passed them along to our forces who did leave as soon as the mission was completed. Our friend also suggested the U.N. should play a larger role or at least be perceived as playing a larger role. Upon investigation I learned that might be rather difficult. The first appearances of the U.N. officials in the region were to hold news a conference to criticize the United States for doing nothing. As we would say back home, they came with big hats but no cattle. Some 17 days after the tsunami, the first U.N. operation, a World Health Organization medical team, showed up and our airlift transported him to the site where they set up operations. The fact remains that the United States and allied governments in the region and volunteer forces were the ones who arrived at a critically important time to save the lives of perhaps tens of thousands who lived through the tsunami but were threatened by death and disease or starvation. Within 6 days of the tsunami, Navy and Marine helicopters were delivering lifesaving food, water, and medical attention to isolated areas all along the west coast of northern Sumatra. I might also say there is a perceived racist undertone and some resentment of the United States. As I mentioned, in 1996 I was part of a Senatorial delegation attending the Asia Pacific dialog conference in Malaysia. Unfortunately, we had to sit through a 25-minute attack by Prime Minister Mahathir who placed the problems of his country at the feet of Jews, Americans, and other Caucasians who he said did not care about brown-skinned people--obviously, a very unpleasant message. At least one of my colleagues vowed he would never travel halfway around the world again to hear such accusations. The larger problem, of course, in the Muslim region has been the United States support of Israel and the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where many are concerned that the United States is conducting war on Islam, not on radical terrorists. These concerns have been partially and somewhat temporarily relieved by the extraordinary tsunami relief effort, but the scholars in the region, people whose judgment I respect, think this improvement will not last long without significant continuing efforts. As I have said, the most obvious problem we have with Indonesia has been a congressionally imposed restriction on military assistance in Indonesia. These restrictions were first imposed in response to abuses by the Indonesian military, TNI, during the 1990s in brutally repressing the unrest in East Timor, leading to the establishment of a separate state in East Timor. Subsequent human rights abuses occurred in other areas under the authoritarian rule of President Suharto. But with a newly elected President SBY, who is working to gain control over the military and install appropriate respect for human rights and civilian control of the military, the time has come, in my view, to assist in that effort by reestablishing full participation for the Indonesian military and our International Military Education and Training Program. Secretary Rice has taken the first step by clearing the way for resumption of full IMET participation by Indonesia. ``IMET for Indonesia is in the United States' interests,'' Secretary Rice said to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I agree. I look forward to working with her and this body to expand the opportunity for IMET training. Not only, however, are we missing an opportunity to help Indonesia on its path to appropriately constrain military force, the sanctions have raised strong reactions from democratically elected members of the Indonesia parliament. Defense Minister Sudarsono stated that if the United States does not change its position, Indonesia would look elsewhere for assistance and alliance. Some members of parliament urged him not to solicit or accept the United States' assistance, but their position, fortunately, still does not appear to be the controlling view in the Government of Indonesia. Some opponents of increased IMET participation for Indonesia are charging that the TNI was responsible for murders of Americans at the Tamika Mine. Our FBI, our own U.S. FBI, was deployed to the area and conducted an investigation in conjunction with the Indonesian forces. The FBI has concluded that the murders were committed by an Indonesian separatist who thought he was killing TNI members. That individual is still being sought, and we hope he will be brought to justice in the near future. Obviously, I think that expanding military-to-military relations with Indonesia is the first and most important and obvious step we can take to improve relations. Beyond that, however, there is work to be done to work more closely with our friends in southeast Asia in providing technical assistance and tsunami relief efforts to help rebuild water infrastructure and other needed facilities. Another tremendous concern is itself a compelling reason for the United States to pursue an active foreign policy with Indonesia; that is, the threat to democracy from political groups that may espouse an extreme form of Islam. After the fall of the Suharto regime, an authoritarian government, the people of Indonesia have embraced democracy. In Congress, Indonesia does not get the credit it deserves for moving so quickly down the path of democratic government. With the election of President SBY, Indonesia just experienced its fourth peaceful democratic transfer of power. Voter participation in Indonesia, approximately 80 percent, should be the envy of us in the United States. However, the voice of extreme Islam is working through the political system, through activists and politically oriented groups, to spread their influence. Their presence is small but growing. In 2004, 79 percent of their voters cast their vote for a secular party, but that is down from 84 percent in 1999. There are groups such as the Justice and Prosperity Party that is growing by taking a hard line against the corruption of the past administration, and it has participated in tsunami relief and other charitable activities. The party is gaining influence among those in Indonesia. But there are also elements in the party in the past who have expressed a desire for an Islamic State and feel that Islam suffered a setback as well as Indonesia suffering an economic setback during the secular dictatorship of Suharto in the ensuing years. There is a danger of the spread of radical Islam, whether it be in the madrasas or the political arena, the anti-western strain of this intolerant form of Islam, or other activities. I believe, as I have outlined previously, there are courageous and determined people in Indonesia fighting to ensure the future of the country as a democracy and one that values the principle of freedom known in secular government. We must remain engaged so their struggle prevails. The bigger picture requires active engagement with Southeast Asian countries seeking the path of democracy, human rights, and economic freedom. In my view, the best forms of assistance we can provide are economic participation by American companies in the region and educational exchanges. These were actually identified by the U.S. Agency for International Development Woods Report of the early 1990s which said that economic investment, trade, and education were the most effective ways of strengthening the relations and building the economies of developing countries. I believe that report was accurate, and I think it is the path for our participation in Southeast Asia. For example, in my recent visit to Malaysia, many leaders we spoke to were concerned that fewer Malaysian students are now studying in the United States than in the past. I believe this educational exchange is extremely valuable for us as well as for students. I hope we can encourage more American colleges and educational foundations to increase their support for educational exchanges. As noted above, however, I believe we must deal with military restrictions and use our IMET programs and other collaborative efforts as a means of assisting Indonesia, as well as other countries in the area, to work in a constructive fashion with our military in observing human rights and civilian control in that country. Not only is it in the interest of the people in Southeast Asia, I believe it is in our economic interest, our strategic interest, and in our interest in fighting the war against terrorism.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now stand in a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak in morning business up to 25 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Peoples Republic of China recently enacted an antisecession or antiseparation law, the intent of which may believe would restrict the Taiwanese people's freedom of speech and allow the Chinese Government to use force to annex Taiwan if China suspects separatist speech making or any other separatist activities on the island. This law has caused a tremendous uproar in Taiwan. Taiwan's foreign minister and chairman of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council have both denounced the law as a unilateral act on the part of China. It will cause tensions in the Taiwan Strait to rise and may have serious consequences for future Taiwan-China relations. I agree with the assessment that China is seeking to change unilaterally the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. China seems to have abandoned any attempt at future dialogue between the two sides and seeks to impose this law on the 23 million people of Taiwan. Chinese assumptions are that Taiwan and China are now already unified and that China has jurisdiction over Taiwan, especially the authority to serve penalty and punishment to Taiwanese people and their leaders. China has ignored the fact that Taiwan and China have been two separate political entities since 1949 and neither has jurisdiction over the other. China, therefore, has no right to carry out punishment to Taiwanese people and leaders whenever China sees fit. Predictably, Taiwanese people are outraged by the latest Chinese act and ask the international community to oppose China's new law. So far, with a wait-and-see attitude, the international community has remained quiet on the subject. It is important that we not appease China. Inaction of the international community will send a dangerous signal and will further encourage China to indulge in its political rhetoric and war-like actions. We must single out the dangers inherent in China's new law, whose enactment will totally discourage the Taiwanese people from seeking a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue. Now is not the time to empower China to prepare for military conflicts across the Taiwan Strait, just as the EU stands to do by lifting the Chinese Arms Embargo. In this era of global terrorism and natural catastrophes, war is the last thing we would like to see in the Asia-Pacific region. I urge all Americans and the international community to oppose China's enactment of the antisecession law, and I plead with both Chinese and Taiwanese leaders not to resort to any extreme measures and not to make a bad situation worse. Both sides should allow tempers to cool and keep dialogues open. May the Lunar New Year bring good will to the Chinese and Taiwanese peoples and may they continue to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the First Baptist Church of Kansas City, MO, on its 150th anniversary. The First Baptist Church has had a long and proud history, coinciding with the history of Kansas City. The church was organized on April 21, 1855, by a group of 10 men and women in the small settlement along the Missouri River incorporated as the City of Kansas. The first pastor was the Reverend R.S. Thomas. In 1859 the congregation completed its first building at Eighth and May Streets in downtown Kansas City. In 1880, a new church building was completed on the southwest corner of Twelfth and Baltimore, later the side of the Hotel Muehlebach. The growth of the congregation and the city dictated relocation of the church in the early 1900s. A new site was chosen at Linwood Boulevard and Park Avenue while a West Side Branch of the church was established at Thirteenth and Broadway to serve the needs of downtown residents. Both buildings were dedicated in 1909. From 1909 and 1942, First Baptist Church ministered in two very different locations. After our country's entry in World War II, changing conditions and needs brought the decision to end the West Side ministry. The property was sold to the Salvation Army. In 1960, the congregation voted to establish a branch church in the southern part of Kansas City. The new colonial-style church building was completed in 1963 at the northwest corner of Wornall Road and Red Bridge Road. There have since been two additions to the original structure. The First Baptist Church of Kansas City was once again ministering at two locations within the city. In 1982, the Linwood Boulevard building was sold to the Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church. Since that time, the church's single location has been at Red Bridge and Wornall. Throughout its 150 years, First Baptist Church of Kansas City, MO, has striven to maintain its concern for and involvement in the entire Kansas City community. Its pastors and members have often assumed leadership positions in civic affairs, especially during a time when Kansas City was fighting to end political corruption within the local government and later when Kansas City worked to bring an end to discrimination in public facilities and housing. The First Baptist Church of Kansas City has strongly supported the home mission and foreign mission programs of their denomination. Many of their members have served in foreign mission fields, including two who are presently working in Hong Kong. The church has always been involved in ecumenical relationships with other churches, other denominations and other faiths in their community, in our nation, and throughout the world by their membership in the Baptist World Alliance. I commend the congregation of First Baptist Church of Kansas City on their commitment to maintain high standards of worship, music, and fellowship. I am pleased to join with the Kansas City community and the State of Missouri in congratulating the congregation and wishing them continued growth and success for the next 150 years.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of the life, leadership and the truly remarkable legacy of the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was a great communicator with a powerful message. He preached the gospel of hope, freedom and opportunity not just for America but for the world. Reagan was a genuinely optimistic person who brought that spirit of optimism and hope to the American people and to enslaved peoples around the world. He was a man who took disappointment and moved on. He was a man of unfailing good humor, care and thoughtfulness. Even people who disagreed with his policies across the board could not help but like him. In the U.S., his policies encouraged the return of more tax dollars to average Americans and unfettered entrepreneurship to create jobs and build the economy. Reagan's strong military opposition to the Soviet Union helped bring down the walls that harbored communism and tyranny throughout Eastern Europe and much of the world. In a letter to the American people in 1994 Ronald Reagan announced he was one of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's disease. One of the most courageous things Ronald and Nancy Reagan did was to announce publicly that he had Alzheimer's disease. Through their courage and commitment, the former President and his wife, Nancy, changed the face of Alzheimer's disease by increasing public awareness of the disease and of the need for research into its causes and prevention. In honor of Ronald Reagan, today my colleague Senator Mikulski and I are introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. This bill will increase research for Alzheimer's and increase assistance to Alzheimer patients and their families. This bill will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will: 1. Double funding for Alzheimer's Research at the National Institute of Health; 2. increase funding for the National Family Caregiver Support Program from $153 million to $250 million; 3. reauthorize the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program that provides grants to states to fill in gaps in Alzheimer's services such as respite care, home health care, and day care; 4. authorize $1 million for the Safe Return Program to assist in the identification and safe, timely return of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias who wander off from their caregivers; 5. establish a public education campaign to educate members of the public about prevention techniques that can ``maintain their brain'' as they age, based on the current research being undertaken by NIH; 6. establish a $3,000 tax credit for caregivers to help with the high health costs of caring for a loved one at home; and 7. encourage families to prepare for their long term needs by providing an above-the-line tax deduction for the purchase of long term care insurance. Ironically it was President Reagan who drew national attention to Alzheimer's for the very first time when he launched a national campaign against Alzheimer's disease some 22 years ago. In 1983 President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month. In his proclamation President Reagan said ``the emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are so devastating that it deserves special attention. Science and clinical medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it successfully. Right now, research is the only hope for victims and families.'' Today, approximately 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's, with annual costs for this disease estimated to exceed $100 billion. Today there are more than 4.5 million people in the United States with Alzheimer's, and that number is expected to grow by 70 percent by 2030 as baby boomers age. In my home State of Missouri, alone, there are over 110,000 people with Alzheimer's disease. Based on population growth, unless science finds a way to prevent or delay the onset of this disease, that number will increase to over 130,000 by 2025--that is an 18 percent increase. In large part due to President Reagan, there has been enormous progress in Alzheimer research--95 percent of what we know we discovered during the past 15 years. There is real potential for major breakthroughs in the next 10 years. Baby boomers could be the first generation to face a future without Alzheimer's disease if we act now to achieve breakthroughs in science. President and Mrs. Reagan have been leading advocates in the fight against Alzheimer's for more than 20 years, and millions of Americans have been helped by their dedication, compassion and effort to support caregivers, raise public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and increase of nation's commitment to Alzheimer's research. This bill will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will offer hope to all those suffering from the disease today. As we celebrate the life and legacy of Ronald Reagan, we are inspired by his legendary optimism and hope, and today we move forward to confront this expanding public health crisis with renewed vigor, passion, and compassion.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of the life, leadership and the truly remarkable legacy of the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan was a great communicator with a powerful message. He preached the gospel of hope, freedom and opportunity not just for America but for the world. Reagan was a genuinely optimistic person who brought that spirit of optimism and hope to the American people and to enslaved peoples around the world. He was a man who took disappointment and moved on. He was a man of unfailing good humor, care and thoughtfulness. Even people who disagreed with his policies across the board could not help but like him. In the U.S., his policies encouraged the return of more tax dollars to average Americans and unfettered entrepreneurship to create jobs and build the economy. Reagan's strong military opposition to the Soviet Union helped bring down the walls that harbored communism and tyranny throughout Eastern Europe and much of the world. In a letter to the American people in 1994 Ronald Reagan announced he was one of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's disease. One of the most courageous things Ronald and Nancy Reagan did was to announce publicly that he had Alzheimer's disease. Through their courage and commitment, the former President and his wife, Nancy, changed the face of Alzheimer's disease by increasing public awareness of the disease and of the need for research into its causes and prevention. In honor of Ronald Reagan, today my colleague Senator Mikulski and I are introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. This bill will increase research for Alzheimer's and increase assistance to Alzheimer patients and their families. This bill will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will: 1. Double funding for Alzheimer's Research at the National Institute of Health; 2. increase funding for the National Family Caregiver Support Program from $153 million to $250 million; 3. reauthorize the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program that provides grants to states to fill in gaps in Alzheimer's services such as respite care, home health care, and day care; 4. authorize $1 million for the Safe Return Program to assist in the identification and safe, timely return of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias who wander off from their caregivers; 5. establish a public education campaign to educate members of the public about prevention techniques that can ``maintain their brain'' as they age, based on the current research being undertaken by NIH; 6. establish a $3,000 tax credit for caregivers to help with the high health costs of caring for a loved one at home; and 7. encourage families to prepare for their long term needs by providing an above-the-line tax deduction for the purchase of long term care insurance. Ironically it was President Reagan who drew national attention to Alzheimer's for the very first time when he launched a national campaign against Alzheimer's disease some 22 years ago. In 1983 President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's Disease Month. In his proclamation President Reagan said ``the emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are so devastating that it deserves special attention. Science and clinical medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes Alzheimer's disease and how to treat it successfully. Right now, research is the only hope for victims and families.'' Today, approximately 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's, with annual costs for this disease estimated to exceed $100 billion. Today there are more than 4.5 million people in the United States with Alzheimer's, and that number is expected to grow by 70 percent by 2030 as baby boomers age. In my home State of Missouri, alone, there are over 110,000 people with Alzheimer's disease. Based on population growth, unless science finds a way to prevent or delay the onset of this disease, that number will increase to over 130,000 by 2025--that is an 18 percent increase. In large part due to President Reagan, there has been enormous progress in Alzheimer research--95 percent of what we know we discovered during the past 15 years. There is real potential for major breakthroughs in the next 10 years. Baby boomers could be the first generation to face a future without Alzheimer's disease if we act now to achieve breakthroughs in science. President and Mrs. Reagan have been leading advocates in the fight against Alzheimer's for more than 20 years, and millions of Americans have been helped by their dedication, compassion and effort to support caregivers, raise public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and increase of nation's commitment to Alzheimer's research. This bill will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will offer hope to all those suffering from the disease today. As we celebrate the life and legacy of Ronald Reagan, we are inspired by his legendary optimism and hope, and today we move forward to confront this expanding public health crisis with renewed vigor, passion, and compassion.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee for allowing me this time. I rise today as cochairman of the beef caucus to speak against Senate Joint Resolution 4, which seeks to condemn the U.S. Department of Agriculture plan to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle. I concur with the sentiments already expressed by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the distinguished agriculturalist from Kansas, Senator Roberts. I also learned a great deal from the professional testimony of our Senator, Dr. Allard, from Colorado, about the safety and about the science that goes into the decision made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I note also that this past week, a group of our scientists who visited Canada said their system of protecting the food supply and the beef was robust and certainly could be counted on. As a member of the agriculture posse, I have heard Secretary Johanns, the Secretary of Agriculture, describe the steps they were taking to ensure our beef supply is protected. We just heard a defense of protectionism. Let me define what protectionism is. Protectionism is, in my view, the use of scare tactics, the use of unsound scientific information, in an attempt to protect our markets. In this case, I believe sound science dictates it is time to open the border. Were it not so, I would not be rising today in support of the Department of Agriculture. The fact remains, as Senator Allard has pointed out, not only is this not based on sound science, the impact of the beef ban has been to create a feeding and slaughter operation in Canada, which is moving the production facilities and jobs out of the United States and into Canada, potentially putting a very harmful impact on our ability to raise, slaughter, and produce the beef we eat in the United States. Yes, beef is what was for dinner last night. Tonight it will be my dinner, and it will continue to be. Every Member of this body and our constituents back home expect the U.S. Government to work to ensure we have the safest food supply possible. That is why we hire scientists. That is why we hire veterinarians. That is why we devote efforts to make sure it is safe. Unfortunately, all too often, the United States takes the abundance and safety of our food supply for granted. When we are faced with challenges to these expectations, like reports of BSE or mad cow disease in our cattle or our immediate neighbor's, the floodgates of demagoguery from so-called consumer advocates are opened, every mother is frightened into believing she may be jeopardizing her family at the next meal she serves, and markets react. Statistics and science say the likelihood of you, me, or our children at home eating a BSE-tainted burger or steak not cooked hot enough to kill the pathogen is, on an order of magnitude, less of a threat than many of the other risks we accept in our everyday lives, such as driving our children to school and back. The alarmism and subsequent waves of fear of BSE threats are seen as opportunities by many of our trading partners who seek to find any excuse to erect trade barriers to our products. These foreign buyers ignore the science, statistics, and history. The U.S. position in the world market is based on the very sound principle that good science should and must prevail. Whether our trade representatives are negotiating exports of genetically enhanced rice or soybeans, meat produced using the most advanced commercial technologies, or as we negotiate reopening of the Japanese beef markets to our own production, sound science is the best negotiating tool we have against the Luddites and naysayers in our potential foreign markets. We cannot fall prey to the wonderful exuberance of populism in protecting our markets with false or pseudoscience-based claims while expecting the world to accept the products of U.S. farmers who feed the world largely due to our use of the latest technologies. The Agriculture Department's amended final rule on resumption of beef and live cattle trade with Canada was developed based on the best science at hand and with broad input from the cattle industry. The amended rule restricts imports of beef animals older than 30 months. Also, Canada, as I said earlier, has implemented appropriate BSE prevention standards similar to our stringent domestic firewalls. As I said earlier, this has been confirmed by our scientists who have visited and inspected the operations in Canada. This includes the banning of all ruminant to ruminant feed and effective enforcement. This alone will drastically reduce further contamination in the Canadian beef herds. Sound science should prevail here and in all of our trade negotiations. I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to encourage the USDA, our trade representatives in Japan, to apply sound science and to continue the move to reopening markets in Japan to our beef exports. Recently, I joined with several of my colleagues who also spoke today sending a letter to the Ambassador to Japan saying we would not stand for pseudoscience-based protectionism preventing the export of U.S. beef to Japan. This past week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Japanese Diet, the legislative body of Japan. I told them of our interest in providing beef to the consumers of Japan. They assured me that American beef is a very high priority for those Japanese consumers. We said, OK, they want it, we have shown it is going to be safe, it is time to open your markets and provide a significant export opportunity which will serve and reward the U.S. cattle producers. I hope we will reject this resolution and allow sound science to rule. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 503 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I introduced S. 503, the Education Begins At Home Act. It is at the desk. It is cosponsored by Senators Talent and DeWine. I invite my colleagues to look at it and join with me in this significant measure to improve early childhood education and development of our children. Parents as Teachers has worked in Missouri. It is a program which involves training and assistance for parents of children from birth to 3 years of age. We have had significant improvements in educational achievements. We have identified problems in children. We have solved problems and saved money by avoiding the necessary, expensive, and very difficult remedial efforts. It involves home visits. It involves bringing children of like age groups together. It works at home. It works for the poorest families. It works for very busy two-working-parent families. It works on our military installations. This measure expands from currently 3,300 children whose parents are in the program nationally to potentially 2.7 million families with young children throughout the United States. The program is presently in all States, in the Union. This expands on it and makes sure we use our early education dollars to the maximum benefit. Get parents involved. Home visits work. Research has clearly shown that the early years are critical in a child's development and lay the foundation for success in school and in life. The home is the first and most important learning environment for children, and parents are their child's first and most influential teacher. Through parent education and family support, we can promote parents' ability to enhance their children's cognitive, language, social- emotional and physical development--thereby helping parents to prepare their children for success in school. It only makes sense to equip parents with the skills they need to help maximize their child's health and development and this is exactly what the Parents at Teachers Program does. The curriculum is designed to build the foundation of later learning, provide early detection of developmental delays as well as health, vision and hearing problems, prevent child abuse and neglect and increase children's school readiness and school success. To achieve these goals, Parents as Teachers provides personalized home visits by trained parent educators, group meetings with other new parents and formal screening of vision and hearing. Twenty-one years ago I pushed the Early Childhood Education Act through the Missouri legislature. During my second term as Governor I signed that ground breaking bill into law which mandated PAT in every school district in the state of Missouri. For me that was the culmination of 5 long years of work. One might say I was on a mission. And I was. Because in 1981, I found myself in a similar situation to that of the Missouri's current Governor. I was about to be a new father myself. PAT certainly made a positive difference in my family. PAT helped us through sleepless nights, teething, and learning the ABC's. My son, Sam, was probably one of the first babies to benefit from the Parents as Teachers materials in Missouri. And countless others have benefited since. What began as an experiment in Missouri has expanded to more than 3,000 sites in all 50 states, and seven foreign countries. Communities all over the world are investing in PAT because the results are positive and the cost is low. Anecdotally, I can tell you that parents in PAT know that it is a tremendous benefit to them and their children. The scientifically sound research shows that: At age 3, PAT children are more advanced in language, social development, problem solving and other cognitive abilities, PAT children score higher on kindergarten readiness tests, Children who participate in PAT score higher on standardized measures of reading, math and language in first through fourth grades, parents who participate in PAT are more confident about their parenting and are more involved in their children's schooling--a key component of a child's success in school. Recognizing that all parents need and deserve support in laying a strong foundation for their child's success I will be introducing the Education Begins at Home Act. To date over 2 million families nationwide have received the education and support they need through PAT. While this is a tremendous accomplishment, there are more families that can be reached by this exceptional program. The Education Begins at Home Act makes a bold federal investment in parents by establishing the first, dedicated federal funding stream to support the expansion of Parents as Teachers--or other home visitation programs--at the state and local level. The $500 million in federal funds over 3 years included in this bill will expand services to over 2.7 million families nationwide. Ten times more families will be served by PAT under this legislation. This bill will: provide $400 million over 3 years to states to expand access to PAT, encourage and foster more collaboration between PAT and Early Head Start Grantees, provide $50 million over 3 years to fund innovative ideas and partnerships at the local level to expand access to PAT in communities with limited English proficiency; and provide $50 million over 3 years to reach more military families by expanding access to PAT in schools and community organizations that serve military families. All babies are born to learn and a parent is a child's first and most important teacher. Parents as Teachers better prepares children for success in school and life and helps parents become more active participants in their child's education. The expansion of Parents as Teachers is a sound investment in the future of our children and families.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I introduced S. 503, the Education Begins At Home Act. It is at the desk. It is cosponsored by Senators Talent and DeWine. I invite my colleagues to look at it and join with me in this significant measure to improve early childhood education and development of our children. Parents as Teachers has worked in Missouri. It is a program which involves training and assistance for parents of children from birth to 3 years of age. We have had significant improvements in educational achievements. We have identified problems in children. We have solved problems and saved money by avoiding the necessary, expensive, and very difficult remedial efforts. It involves home visits. It involves bringing children of like age groups together. It works at home. It works for the poorest families. It works for very busy two-working-parent families. It works on our military installations. This measure expands from currently 3,300 children whose parents are in the program nationally to potentially 2.7 million families with young children throughout the United States. The program is presently in all States, in the Union. This expands on it and makes sure we use our early education dollars to the maximum benefit. Get parents involved. Home visits work. Research has clearly shown that the early years are critical in a child's development and lay the foundation for success in school and in life. The home is the first and most important learning environment for children, and parents are their child's first and most influential teacher. Through parent education and family support, we can promote parents' ability to enhance their children's cognitive, language, social- emotional and physical development--thereby helping parents to prepare their children for success in school. It only makes sense to equip parents with the skills they need to help maximize their child's health and development and this is exactly what the Parents at Teachers Program does. The curriculum is designed to build the foundation of later learning, provide early detection of developmental delays as well as health, vision and hearing problems, prevent child abuse and neglect and increase children's school readiness and school success. To achieve these goals, Parents as Teachers provides personalized home visits by trained parent educators, group meetings with other new parents and formal screening of vision and hearing. Twenty-one years ago I pushed the Early Childhood Education Act through the Missouri legislature. During my second term as Governor I signed that ground breaking bill into law which mandated PAT in every school district in the state of Missouri. For me that was the culmination of 5 long years of work. One might say I was on a mission. And I was. Because in 1981, I found myself in a similar situation to that of the Missouri's current Governor. I was about to be a new father myself. PAT certainly made a positive difference in my family. PAT helped us through sleepless nights, teething, and learning the ABC's. My son, Sam, was probably one of the first babies to benefit from the Parents as Teachers materials in Missouri. And countless others have benefited since. What began as an experiment in Missouri has expanded to more than 3,000 sites in all 50 states, and seven foreign countries. Communities all over the world are investing in PAT because the results are positive and the cost is low. Anecdotally, I can tell you that parents in PAT know that it is a tremendous benefit to them and their children. The scientifically sound research shows that: At age 3, PAT children are more advanced in language, social development, problem solving and other cognitive abilities, PAT children score higher on kindergarten readiness tests, Children who participate in PAT score higher on standardized measures of reading, math and language in first through fourth grades, parents who participate in PAT are more confident about their parenting and are more involved in their children's schooling--a key component of a child's success in school. Recognizing that all parents need and deserve support in laying a strong foundation for their child's success I will be introducing the Education Begins at Home Act. To date over 2 million families nationwide have received the education and support they need through PAT. While this is a tremendous accomplishment, there are more families that can be reached by this exceptional program. The Education Begins at Home Act makes a bold federal investment in parents by establishing the first, dedicated federal funding stream to support the expansion of Parents as Teachers--or other home visitation programs--at the state and local level. The $500 million in federal funds over 3 years included in this bill will expand services to over 2.7 million families nationwide. Ten times more families will be served by PAT under this legislation. This bill will: provide $400 million over 3 years to states to expand access to PAT, encourage and foster more collaboration between PAT and Early Head Start Grantees, provide $50 million over 3 years to fund innovative ideas and partnerships at the local level to expand access to PAT in communities with limited English proficiency; and provide $50 million over 3 years to reach more military families by expanding access to PAT in schools and community organizations that serve military families. All babies are born to learn and a parent is a child's first and most important teacher. Parents as Teachers better prepares children for success in school and life and helps parents become more active participants in their child's education. The expansion of Parents as Teachers is a sound investment in the future of our children and families.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.